Why I designed the “Legalism Scale

Why I designed the “Legalism Scale.”

For the last several weeks the discussion has been hot in the “Holiness Denominations” over two articles in Christianity Today related to the Holiness movement.

The first article is Holiness Without the Legalism and is an interview with Kevin Mannoia graduate and faculty chaplain at Azusa Pacific University and the spokesperson for ten historic holiness denominations who went together to re-mint the holiness message for today. The title stuck on the interview by Christianity Today reminded me that to the rest of the church Holiness people are best known for their strict lifestyle and a lengthy list of “don’ts.” Mannoia & crew are attempting to keep the baby of holiness while tossing out the bathwater of legalism. Reading the interview caused me to chuckle—remembering that Boomers always classify any sort of lifestule matters as “legalism” even though technically they aren’t. And I always chuckle that boomers tend to want the church to get as liberal as they are—and not one baby step more! So I thought I’d make a list of all the “rules” I personally have seen in holiness churches in my lifetime, then attempt to classify them in some sequence of order—thus the six “levels.” I am certain I’ve missed many “standards” that my readers will add (and I might add to the scale for later sue) but generally there is enough there to figure out where you started and where you are now…and to predict where the next generation might go in the future. It was fin for me and I have to thank Ken Schenck (who is even more schooled in these matters than I) for helping make the list.

The second article is even more important but I am not addressing it here—The Holiness Manifesto. This statement is the result of two year’s work by representatives of ten holiness denominations in an attempt to articulate holiness for the modern age, sans legalism.

My outline summary of the statement is as follows:

1. We need to rearticulate holiness for today.

2. Churches are declining or static—and that shows we need to do it.

3. Churches are too in love methods and fads and this won’t save us from the mess.

4. Our leaders are too absorbed with numbers and programs and market-driven strategies.

5. Our leaders have lost the ability to lead.

6. To reach people we have to shed old methods and patterns.

7. Our mission is our message—holiness.

8. People are tired of petty lines and division, they’re even tired of denominations themselves.

9. People want a clear message that has power and brings unity.

10. Our message is simple: God calls us to be a holy people. Holiness is Christ-likeness.

11. God through Christ transforms us and delivers us from sin, bondage and self-centeredness.

12. Through the Holy Spirit people can live in love like Jesus Christ.

13. Holy people are not legalistic or judgmental

14. The pursuit of holiness never ceases.

15. Holy people live devout lives resulting in love, community transforming the world, care for the poor and stewardship of the world.

Each denomination could name representatives and the “Holiness and Unity” project web site (the resulting un-organization from this study) gives the participant list and their affiliation.

Nazarenes(4) Salvation Army(4) Church of God-Anderson(5) Free Methodists(4) Foursquare(5) C&MA(3) plus one or two from various other smaller bodies. Wesleyans were conspicuously absent from participation—who knows why? I had heard that GS Dave Holdern had been appointed to the committee but apparently he didn’t attend meetings, or at least refused to be listed on the statement for some reason. Maybe he didn’t name others and he was the only representative and just couldn’t attend the meetings? From what I see of the statement I think Holdren would like it. The committee still got their “ten denominations” by listing Don Dayton as the single Wesleyan representative. Or maybe Holdren handed off his assignment to Dayton unofficially since he was nearby at Azusa? I don’t know. Perhaps Wesleyans were saying, “We’re quite satisfied with our holiness statements just the way they are, thank you?” Or, maybe the opposite—they didn’t want to talk about holiness, but rather leadership? Maybe the Wesleyan GSs suspicious of “what Kevin Mannoia’s up to out there?” –we all know “there is a history” between FM Bishops and Wesleyans GSs. Or, perhaps they wanted to resist any sort of reincarnation of the now-defunct NHA/CHA/CHP? Who knows, maybe it was resistance to a West Coast/Azusa connection relocating the Holiness belt from the Midwest to the coast? Or, maybe they thought Kevin Mannoia was getting too big for his britches—I’ve seen big britches guys get snubbed a time or two. Who knows, perhaps they simply resisted coughing up the money the project asked for and they said, “No thanks, we gave at the [our own] office? Who knows these things? I don’t—but once the list hit the Christianity Today and it is public for all to see it makes us curious of course. Who knows, maybe someone knows out there and will help us answer these questions we curious minds want to know about.

Anyway, the resulting un-organization Holiness and Unity has its own web site featuring a chatty greeting by Kevin Mannoia and links to all of these documents can be seen in their official form. Also there has been some partially developed discussion on the (unofficial, of course) Nazarene Discussion board, NazNet.

If you want to discuss this statement I’ll toss up a short-lived BLOG for you to talk about it—either the seeming snub by Wesleyans of this group and why, or the statement itself.

Keith Drury 4/9/06